As you already may see, the words “Problem” and “Religion” are both placed in question. A problem according to who? And what is this religion? For there are so many and each so diverse.
One criticism cannot fit all, and someone will come to defend theirs as being unscathed by any criticism presented. I understand that, and that is why, I only say “from my perspective”.
The “problem” can be defined as an “obstacle”. Now, not all obstacles are undefeatable. What I propose to present is not a case for disbelief or a defense of atheism, but an enumeration of that which makes me take pause and think.
From Wiki we get an attempt at a definition:
“… a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.”
Now, I don’t need to trace a history of religion, or at least I don’t wish to do so. The definition seems aptly enough. It is a set of beliefs. That does not specify belief in God or in reincarnations, Nirvana, or just in a way of life as best etc, etc. It is a belief that is pre-rational, in my opinion, and could be a part of our mental make-up. It could turn out that to be human is to be in possession of some set of beliefs. Sartre said that we are condemned to be free; Perhaps we’re condemned to choose and every choice seems to be undetermined, fundamentally speaking, by reason. What seems to be determined is the need in man to choose regardless.
The similarity of our biological make-up and similarity of our condition: we age, we get sick, we suffer from floods: pre-set our beliefs to be similar to one another as we are also similar to one another. Certain things we all can know, however, almost to a certainty. We don’t need a set of beliefs like a religion to believe that there is a table before us. We can see it well enough (and the senses are the givers of ultimate belief). But religion is a method to alliviate something- that is the core fact for me. Be it Buddhism, Christianity, or Mysticism in one way or another, all could be said to alliviate some perceived lack. A religion carries within a diagnostic of the human condition and a prescription to solve that condition. It is pessimistic and optimistice in it’s very reason for existence.
But the obstacle every religion faces is the Humean question: How do you know? Because it is one thing that you simply are of this opinion and another thing that YOUR opinion be heard. A mystical experience of course cannot be even subjected to this question, yet at the same time, when a mystical experience is expanded to include the rest of humanity- when one takes what is true of ourselves and apply it to all members of humanity- then the question does apply. The answer might be an inference, an analogy made from nature etc, but these represent the method used not the concordance of the method with what is the actual case, or fact. It makes the belief logical, reasonable, possible, but not by necessity true.
While this is an obstacle, a religion has a necessity to presume that it’s rationalizations are indeed true in order to justify the education of others into it’s precepts. That is an obstacle because right away it divides humanity between those who “know” and those who could know (or could be taught), or even need to know, need to be taught. Depending on the degree of influence and the seriousness of the believers this problem can be very serious and led to intolerance. An intolerance that is preestablished because the believer takes his belief as true and that the true is a good thing and that he or she is doing good by his neighbor to pass on this truth he has discovered.
Of course, this criticism is not wide enough to include all. Some would not impart to others what they have found. And also, this criticsm would seem to weight too much on the side of the believer. What about the student? What I mean is that one thing that leads to problems is the composition of the belief but another is retained in a person’s need for simplicity, for order, meaning in life. These are achieved in part by this intolerance of some views. Searching for the truth becomes a process of negation, where the field is cropped and several plants are rooted out as weeds. But each weed is to itself a sweet vegetable.
The proble of religion is then for me that each religion wants to see itself as the one true one, or at least the most influential religions do, but not really based on what is known but on what must be presummed by a rationale and inherited natural disposition. Religion takes what is already a dangerous disposition and ratches up the stakes. I am not saying that the drive for meaning is bad, but that is dangerous and that when we try to apply it (or let it run loose) to questions regarding concepts and definitions, we, with the best intentions imaginable, give intolerance a logical/rational explanation and overlook the natural bias involved, the natural prejudice.
I know somebody will bring up a list of religions that respectfully acknowledge that they might not be the only way, such as judaism (in some writers) and the late roman paganism of Symmachus. But then is the religion of God’s Chosen People so behind that tolerance rest an intolerance of God. God only knows…but we see what god commands and complaints about…God is a jealous God. Symmachus (Quintus Aurelio) said:
“We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; [9] but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.”
How could we not agree? But behind this noble sentiment is the plea of one who sees event A (the removal of the monument to Voctory) as leading to result B (disasters). In that he is not as open minded as it first seemed. He too reduces the road to just the paved road of specific rites and prayers and sacrifice and the others as detrimental- tolerable only if the Truth is kept. Christianity in a sense inherited this spirit in that , today, they too come to accept this or that religion based on the preparatory value it has for the potential christian (see Ratzinger).
As we can see, religious toleration is superficial. At a deeper level there lies, I think, a drive for truth and truth is a jealous thing that cannot be itself next to others but by itself.
And I am not making a case for toleration, because quite frankly I am not being very tolerant right now, or am I? But what I don’t tolerate is intolerance based on definitions, or from definitions. It is there that you will see some of the rashest actions ever taken by man. I plead only for a little bit of amazement. If not contentment with just saying: “I don’t know”, or “It might be”, or “Perhaps”- some view that stops short of divinity and returns back on itself with fresh questions, fresh awe and respect and humility in our finiteness, a finiteness that cannot hope to buy for us all that a definition promises. To recognize that when we are dealing with the greatest of questions we are prime target for our own hearts desire and we transfer upon reality what we carry solely within, often injuring ourselves by becoming blind just as we feel that we are seeing all.
Have I said it all?
No.
Less I say that what you see above is problems of mine with religion. I do not deny that it is important, just as the education of young ones is important. But perhaps, in my perspective at least, the most religious person, the most pious, might just be the one with ironically, no religion in specific. Some other time we will discuss the piety of the “impious”.